1. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and prohibit those here illegally from benefiting from any taxpayer funded social services, including emergency room treatment and public education for children here illegally. (45 for, 47 against)

2. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and design a temporary worker program that does not grant immigrants legal citizenship, but does allow them to legally work here for a specific period of time and then requires them to return to their country of origin. (70 for, 24 against)

3. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and set up a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants who admit they broke the law, perform community service, pay fines and back taxes and learn English. (67 for, 26 against)

The first, surprisingly-popular choice is completely unrealistic, would be a public safety nightmare, and wouldn't stand up to even the slightest constitutional challenge. And, USC, the LAT, and Greenberg all know that: they're intentionally trying to mislead people.

The second is the "corrupt Republican fantasy program", similar in spirit to plans from George W Bush, Mike Pence, and Helen Krieble. USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't telling respondents that such a program would be nearly impossible: those guest workers would be here to stay, especially those who've had U.S. citizen children. We'd trade millions of illegal aliens we can't deport for millions of "guests" who won't go home despite being "required" to do so.

The third is the comprehensive immigration reform choice, with a possible tip of the hat to the recent Chuck Schumer/Lindsey Graham scheme (From their scheme: "They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.") It has the flaws listed at the first link in this paragraph and many more, and USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't telling respondents about those flaws.

And, USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't asking about a fourth plan: attrition. That would involve enforcing the law - but not blocking emergency treatment and the like - in order to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens here over time. Needless to say, polls that are designed to mislead - such as this one - don't ask about plans like that.